NJS

The thing is theres a correlation between faith schools and good results - parents/politicians add 2 and 2 and make 5 - they think its the faith element that matters instead of looking at other factors. I went to a catholic school which did overdo the god element but at the same time I felt that the good results came more from the fact that the kids were brought up "right" and worked harder/behaved. By this I don't mean only catholics behave or have intelligence but the morals which I don't think have to be linked to a god are pretty good (as I've always said). As long as the curriculum keeps it to a minimum (I'd not teach it at all a la USA) then the actual education element isn't that bad. The divisive social aspects are however a timebomb imo.

I recorded it but havem't watched it yet. I did however watch the first one on Sunday - I'd agree with GF that he was a bit took "meek" (and so will inherit the earth ) with the nutters but sometimes thats a better way to get them to show themselves up than "How fucking stupid are you?"

As I've said before there seems to be an "rationality excuse" when it comes to religion - you can't question it on the grounds of causing offence as its "personal" or "faith based" but the same doesn't apply to say a racist who says "I believe whites are superior". The fact that they have no answers to the sensible questions is what they want to hide by refusing to answer.

What got me in the wake of the London bombings was the "factual" way the term "brainwashing" was used in relation to convincing the bombers to act. If you spend up to 20 years "teaching" people that there is a God with a Heaven which is your reward for doing his will how much more "brainwashing" does it take to say "if you do this then you will go there"? The problem imo is that there is not enough opposition like Dawkin's to religion. Not from fear of reprisals (though that would be a concern) but just that people who have "seen sense" don't think its worth the effort. When you consider the consequences I think it should be on the agenda - I'd certainly start by abolishing faith schools and all teaching of it in schools.

I couldn't watch it - I knew I would get too angry - especially this test/punishment concept - God as a sort of Santa Claus/Bogeymen type figure.

Nah - I just assumed everyone would know who wrote A Brief History of Time I've just started re-reading An Ancestors Tale - don't know if its my age but I find non-fiction isn't sticking to my brain immediately these days - I've already overcome one of my doubts from the first time which was only around 5 months ago.

At least he knows if he's threatened with the wrath of God (and not one of his minions) then he's okay On your question I re-read A Brief History of Time recently and it made more sense second time around. Also my "annoyance" at his overuse of the word "God" last time was dampened a lot and I found myself finding the suggestion that the universe deliberately "lends" itself towards intelligent life (in our case) quite intriuging. I obvious still think Mount Olympos/Grey haired old men who actually control this world concepts are nonsense and I'm not joining the priesthood tomorrow but I think the concept of a universal creator is not one I'd dismiss so readily.

Wish I'd seen it after my boss mentioned it and "accused" me of writing it I'll look out for a repeat or download opportunity. Strangely using the bible, the classic misquote is "money is the root of all evil" which misses out "love of" at the start. I don't think religion is the root of all evil - its just the excuse. Recently I've found myself getting more frustrated at the irrationality of so called intelligent people spouting creationism etc. Its got to the stage where I think if people reject science so much then science should reject them - that ungodly concept of medicine comes to mind.

I thought he'd done well at Blackburn given the club and thought that given a better squad and more money he'd succeed here. I have no problem saying that or saying now that I think bad luck notwithstanding he's failed. 73934[/snapback] But look where Blackburn were when he was appointed - one of the few clubs lower than us after having nearly been relegated the year before! It was the maddest appointment ever imo. 73941[/snapback] The "favourite" now - Allarydyce has flirted with relegation off and on at Bolton - all of the shortlist have had up/down years but I always try and look at the best in people.

I thought he'd done well at Blackburn given the club and thought that given a better squad and more money he'd succeed here. I have no problem saying that or saying now that I think bad luck notwithstanding he's failed.

I remember starting a thread on the Toontastic of the time which stated that it seemed like I was the only one "happy". Of the candidates at the time I stand by that. That doesn't mean I still think he's the man for the job or think that he's done well overall but the alternatives still don't appeal.

True but you like to think so - my worry is that the "instant expectation" will do for the next one as well and will actually put anyone decent off.

On that basis Bobby would have been sacked early in 3 of the next 4 seasons. In the league in 99/00 and 00/01 we were dross - just as bad if not worse than last/this year. I also don't agree that the squad he took over was as bad as is being implied. (I agree on the cup) 73842[/snapback] I think our two foreign correspondents (Bombadil and Isegrim) are spot on on this one, I think that you too NJS also know the difference. Also, nobody has even talked about the relative managerial CVs of Robson and Souness - they don't really compare. Personally, I am willing to give a manager more time if he has had previous success. And Robson to me had proven he was world class. 73846[/snapback] Won leagues in minor countries? Only kidding - I know what you're saying and I sort of agree but my point is similar to others - I think people do deserve a chance which in your case I'd accept was forthcoming. As I've said before of the shortlist last time I thought Souness was the best choice. With the same shortlist I'm still not ecstatic about the choices. A good alternative would make me happy but I will give whoever a chance.

On that basis Bobby would have been sacked early in 3 of the next 4 seasons. In the league in 99/00 and 00/01 we were dross - just as bad if not worse than last/this year. I also don't agree that the squad he took over was as bad as is being implied. (I agree on the cup)

I agree with the gist of your reply (Especially on morale) but he did wheel and deal a bit getting rid of Goma for example who I thought was a good player. Playing Devil's advocate he made no attempt to get on with/improve the situation of Marcelino - not a popular view I know but when you consider how he fell out with Nobby and Elliot to an extent later on I'd say to try and make out that Bobby was the perfect opposite to Souness is just a tad biased. On a similar note see Keegan with Venison/Clark/Cole.

Going by that reckoning Ferguson would have been sacked by Man Utd early in his career, Morinho just likes to heap pressure on his rivals in my opinion. If he doesn't win the Champions League with Chelsea this season or next (which I'm sure is what Abramovich wants) then no doubt he'll be saying he wants time. Regarding Souness, I'm not saying give him more time as he was never the right man for the job, rather that he hasn't had time in my view. 73791[/snapback] the best 2 managers at Newcastle in recent times, Keegan and Robson. From the start, they brought an obvious improvement and came across as knowing what they were doing 73808[/snapback] So I imagined 18 months of utter shite (disguised by a cup run) under Bobby? There was no further sign of any improvement until Bellamy/Robert signed (see I can give praise to those two when rightful)

The Pope asking for a rubber? - thats your place in hell confirmed 61745[/snapback] Fine then an eraser but it was a class joke and you know it. 61746[/snapback] Agreed but I couldn't resist.

The Pope asking for a rubber? - thats your place in hell confirmed

I don't agree - though a lot more comedians are around compared with comediennes I think there are a few decent ones. I don't mind Jo Brand in small doses and find her infinitely more funny than Lee Evans or Jimmy Carr. I never liked Victoria Wood but thought the Roseanne TV show was generally quality though I'm unfamilar with any of her other work. If I watch the Stand up shows on paramount I find the quality to be variable but gender does not seem to be a factor in that.

Congrats

The no claims bonus is the starting point but then other factors are applied - type of car, age, gender and strangely occupation. You can then of course have a protected no claims bonus which means I can "recklessly" have accidents without losing it. I guess you're right about the likelihood thing but I see it in terms of the ratio of accidents per amount driven as an indicator of "safeness". Perhaps the future technology will be used in the exact opposite way to that I've suggested earlier and "heavy use" drivers will be charged more.

I see what you're saying but.... My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents". I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis. On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic.

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it.

As another view I've been a cyclist as an adult for about 11 years and nearly every minor accident and near miss I've had has involved a woman driver. Before anyone starts I never cycle on the pavement or go through red lights. I don't know whether its a thing of girls not using bikes as much as kids and having no concept of how fast semi-fit adults can go or what but its something I'd stand by within normal "shocking generalisation" levels.

They do however already roughly correlate mileage with accidents via projected mileage/number of accidents in 5 years questions. Of course these are very arbitrary which as has been said technology may quantify in the future. I just think if they do want to assess risk properly then they should "firm up" the stats or not bother. Another gripe is that insurance in most peoples view is to cope with accidents but the risk of theft via postcode factors are given too high a proportion in my view.